Motion to Endorse Blue Ribbon Campaign

Nov 18 20:40 UTC 1998

        I move that Grex place a blue ribbon and a statement endorsing
the Blue Ribbon Campaign for Online Freedom of Expression on its web
page until the fate of the recently-enacted Federal statute which
prohibits the display of material 'harmful to minors' in certain
circumstances is decided by the Federal courts.
        This motion is made under Article V of the Grex bylaws.

response 2 of 48:

Nov 18 23:45 UTC 1998

I'd suggest wording like:

        I move that Grex place and endorsement of the Blue Ribbon
Campaign for Online Freedom of Expression on its web page.  This
endorsement should stay in place at least until the fate of the
recently-enacted Federal statute which prohibits the display of
material 'harmful to minors' in certain circumstances is decided
by the Federal courts, but may be left up longer at the discretion
of Grex's webmasters.

Basically, it's vaguer about the exact form that the endorsement should
take, and it only sets a minimum on how long the thing can stay up, not
a maximum.

response 4 of 48:

Nov 19 05:52 UTC 1998

This is an open discussion and there are lots of different points of view.
Your's, for example. 

response 6 of 48:

Nov 19 15:34 UTC 1998

(Note: Since this is a formal proposal by a member, the bylaws specify 
procedures and time constraints, which I'll review: Minimum of two weeks 
for discussion (can be longer, at the proposer's option). When the 
proposer submits a final wording, it is put up for a vote and passes if 
a majority of those voting vote in favor. Voting period is ten days, 
during which discussion can of course continue. Since the vote program 
allows people to change their votes, continued discussion could indeed 
affect the outcome.

The minimum two week discussion period ends December 3. This means a 
vote on this *might* take place at the same time as the Board election. 
This would not be a technical problem.)

I like the gist of Jan's changes.

response 8 of 48:

Nov 19 18:11 UTC 1998

The last time I became a member, I found I had to participate in the 
election to do so.  The very day after I'd made it emphatically clear I 
didn't want e-mail about Grex's elections, I got e-mail about Grex's 
elections.  I donated my membership to Meg Geddes, and didn't send any 
money to Grex for about 5 years.

Just last week, I became a member of Grex once again.  I gave a 
check to aruba for a year's membership.  This time I did plan to 
participate in the elections, as an interested voter.  But, now it looks 
very likely I'll have to support a political campaign to be a member, 
when what I really wanted was to support Grex as a free discussion 
board.  The concepts to me of a political agenda and a free discussion 
board are incompatible.

So, if this thing passes, that will be 2 bad experiences from 2 
memberships for me.  I'm not going to blast anyone, or ask for my money 
back, but this *is* a disincentive for me to send more money to Grex (if 
it passes).

BTW, and FWIW, I support the general goals of the blue ribbon campaign.  
I'll bet at least 95% of Grexers do, too.  I hope they do.  I just think 
it's really inappropriate for Grex itself to "have an opinion".

response 10 of 48:

Nov 19 19:32 UTC 1998

I don't think we usually spam members with a lot of E-mail about
elections, but sending mail to members reminding them that they can vote
seems perfectly reasonable.  I'd think most members would appreciate
that.  Hard to please all the people though.

On the second issue, I think he means that if he supports Grex by
donating money, and Grex supports a cause he does agree with, then he
feels his support is being attached to something he doesn't want to
support against his will.  To a degree, I think that is one of the
hazards of supporting any group.  It's agenda will never be exactly what
you would like or expect.  At least as a member you have some input -
you can vote against this motion.

I'm still undecided on this.  Grex's web page says right at the top:

         Welcome to Grex
    a public service promoting
           free speech
               and
           free access
          on the internet

with "free speech" and "free access" in big red letters.  I put this
there myself, and I think it expresses the general opinion here.  So our
web page already says very prominently that we support free speech.

The step being proposed here is that we go from supporting internet free
speech in general, through words on our web site and through our own
actions and policies, to specifically endorsing the Blue Ribbon Campaign
for Online Freedom of Expression.  I'm still uncomfortable with the idea
of Grex taking that step.  It just doesn't seem like part of our
purpose.  The mere existance of Grex is an extremely powerful statement
that the people here absolutely support free speech.  Compared to that,
Blue Ribbons are completely insignificant.  I really believe that Grex,
as an organization, should rarely speak.  I'm probably going to vote
against this.

response 12 of 48:

Nov 20 02:21 UTC 1998

(I remember the last time jep became a member.  It was while I was running
for the board for the first time.  At that point, some percentage of the
members had to vote in an election, or we wouldn't have quorum and the
election wasn't valid.  Nobody was forced to vote, but people not voting
managed to, inadvertantly I'm sure, cause major procedural headaches.  We
ended up doing a bylaw ammendment to eliminate the quorum requirement (that
vote required a quorum too, but we somehow got it), and we then did the board
election over again.  None of this is particularly relevant to the issue at
hand, but I thought I'd put jep's comments into context)

response 14 of 48:

Nov 20 14:23 UTC 1998

re #12: Thanks for your comment.  That was the problem, but I'd 
forgotten it.  I just remembered having a problem.  (How embarrassing.)

re #10: I agree with the Blue Ribbon Campaign.  I think it's a fine 
thing.  I wish it the best.  If I had a home page, I might well sign up 
myself.  It's that I think Grex should be above participating in 
political campaigns.  Grex should remain an independent forum.

re #13: You (mdw) mentioned:

>That's right, CDA II is being
>promoted with *your* tax dollars, by a bunch of people who really don't
>care what you think.

This proposal is the flip side of that.  Tax dollars will be used to 
oppose something enacted by an elected Congress (because Grex is a 
501(c)(3) organization now).  Also, membership dollars will be used the 
same way.  If it's objectionable for the government to promote CDA II, 
then it's objectionable for Grex to oppose it.

Then there's the "slippery slope" argument, which Jan has already 
poo-pooed, either here or in the other item in agora.  He's dismissed it 
quite incorrectly.  Once Grex starts having a political agenda, it's a 
sure bet that people are going to try to have Grex support other 
political movements, too.  I'd rather see it stop right now, than to see 
Grex endorsing candidates and assuming political stances on the behalf 
of me and other people here.

Grex supports free speech.  It does that by existing; by allowing 
unrestricted public expression.  Endorsing a political agenda isn't 
going to increase or improve that function.

response 16 of 48:

Nov 20 15:42 UTC 1998

It is easy to break one stick. A bundle of sticks is much more difficult
to break. We must stand with all those that oppose restriction of free
speech, or we will be broken one by one. 

How many membership dollars will it take, by the way, to put up the blue
ribbon and statement (personally, I think the "dollars" argument is
irrelevant - one devotes resources to one's goals to the extent necessary
and feasible. It depends on the strength of your convictions. Anyone here
have strong convictions about free speech?)?

response 18 of 48:

Nov 20 16:01 UTC 1998

Whups... I slipped there for a minute.

response 20 of 48:

Nov 20 20:35 UTC 1998

John, I'm sorry if you feel your Grex membership money is not being put to
good use, but I'm afraid I don't understand your arguments.

It will take a total of 0 dollars and 0 cents, per month, to put the blue
ribbon on Grex's web site.

I am reminded of a story I heard about Bill Cosby back when he was doing his
show on NBC in the 80s.  He put a sign up on the living room set that said
"End Apartheid" or something to that effect.  The jar-heads at the network
told him to take it down, because the network didn't want to get involved in
a political issue.  Cosby said that the network might not have an opinion on
apartheid, but there was absolutely only one opinion the fictional Huxtable
family could have, and he walked off the set rather than let them take down 
the sign.  Eventually the network capitulated, and the sign stayed up.

While it may be a contoversial issue in some quarters, there is absolutely
only one position Grex can have on the issue of free speech on the Internet,
by virtue of our mission.  We're not expanding our opinions at all to support
the blue ribbon campaign, so I think the slippery slope argument is without
merit.  When people start proposing we support wildlife refuges, or recycling
programs, or family values, THEN you can complain that we've gotten off track.

response 22 of 48:

Dec 4 19:29 UTC 1998

I think it's time to start the member vote on this motion, isn't it?

response 24 of 48:

Dec 5 20:02 UTC 1998

The final text of the motion is in response #2 up there.